Re: formal vs. natural

On 7/3/08, Sean A. O'Hara <sean@gimcw.org> wrote:
> Hi Ben -

>
> While touring around some beautiful countryside in the South of France, I
> found coming across a formal garden (not usually my taste) quite refreshing in
> contrast to the more 'natural' hectares surrounding.

Perhaps I should've been a little clearer and said "naturalistic". All
gardens are of course an artificial thing, and it's not like I let the
yard go through natural stages of progression (though for a time it
had begun to do so, I had coyote bush pop up and then silver lupine
before I did much with it).

>  The inverse can be true
> in my own urban area - miles of cookie-cutter, neat & tidy, 'kindergarten
> formal' gardens (similar to how young children draw a garden on paper!) in
> suburbia makes you crave a garden based upon a natural or native aesthetic.

If you took a tour through my neighborhood, no one really has any
clipped hedges or a formal layout. A lot of people lanted things where
they fit, or strove to have something like a cottage garden. The only
neighbor close by I can think of who has anything approaching formal
is our neighbor up the street who has a large lawn fronted by a large,
flat expanse of large gravel.

> Each of us also has our own interest, philosophy, political stance, etc.,
> which can influence our choices.  This is what makes gardens unique and
> interesting.

Indeed, and I am not one to "harsh" on anyone for liking formal. You
can do what you want, and I like clipped hedges and lawns in the right
circumstances. A place like Versailles would not look right without
the parterres. Likewise, a Japanese garden would look a mess without
the extensive level of grooming the Japanese do to them (although
those end up looking as a professor of mine once said "More natural
than nature").

>
> When I consult with clients, one of my routine questions is what, exactly,
> they consider gardening to be and what of these activities do they enjoy.
> I've had clients who actually PREFER to have something to trim, cut, shear,
> and the power tools that can be employed in such activities they really enjoy
> owning and using.  More often (unless they have a contract with some local
> 'mow & blow' landscape maintenance company) this is seen as a waste of time
> and energy.
>

My older brother is like this. He likes the idea of neatly clipped
lawns and hedges, but only  likes them if he can hire a mow and blow
company to come in and do it himself. He usually likes to criticise
the front garden as weedy since I don't neetly clip everything.

> Personally, I enjoy an enclosed garden, and in my urban setting, this is
> usually defined by a neighbor's wall, garage, etc.  I actually have a very
> short bit of hedge I must keep in check.  While I try to 'get into it', I find
> it burdensome (and it shows on the hedge!).

If I had my way, I would've done this with my parents' garden.
However, my mother believes it should be a showcase to passers by, and
remarks that if she had done the garden it would be a suburban
"stepped back" planting scheme with everything low up front and
everything tall behind, rather than the more naturalistic approach I
took with tall shrubs and short plants mixed as if they grew there.

> Being overly formal here would only underscore
> that various problems with the site, many of which are not on the table for
> improvement at the moment.

My intention for having a naturalistic garden is because my parents
aren't exactly gardening types, and I didn't want something they'd
have to go out and clip

> Formal concepts should come into play in most gardens - balance, symmetry,
> repetition - but I like it when they take a back seat to the more informal
> arrangement of the whole.  \

I'd say that unless you're just putting things into the ground where
there's space and letting it go, I think that all gardens have some
sort of formal concepts behind them. I've actually followed something
of a Japanese approach, using borrowed scenery (our neighbor's
garden), using foliage effects for interest, repetition, and planting
things in irregular groupings. I actually planted three different
things that all have a similar leaf color: a purple leaved plum, a
purple leaved cotinus, and purple leaved Dodonaea.

The most formal part is our future hedge (well, I'm letting them grow
as they like mostly) of Dodonaea with Asteriscus maritima planted
between each plant.

> A successful garden will usually look like someone
> had a hand in its creation, but it should also seem like the plant (and other
> elements) themselves had a voice in the decisions (which, if we allow them to
> inform us, they do!).

I believe in letting plants grow as they would with some training. I
don't believe in letting things to entirely wild, but I've constantly
pruned out crossing branches, branches that hang down, or branches
that make the centers of my small trees too dark, such as the purple
leaved plum, which has taken a spreading form, rather than the lolipop
I see with others around the neighborhood. My Ray Hartman Ceanothus
have been constantly trained and I actually did some corrective
pruning to get the one that partially blew over to look like it grew
that way.

However, I don't like seeing beautiful plants like ceanothus clipped
all the time just to make a hedge so they lose those attributes that
made them attractive in the first place.
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index